Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

[Synoptic-L] excavating Q

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    Jim West wrote -- ... Which Q hypothesis? According to W. Schmittals, Mark was a documentary ancestor of Q (sic), according to D. Zeller and H. T. Fleddermann
    Message 1 of 24 , Oct 1, 2000
      Jim West wrote --
      >
      >In your opinion, is the Q hypothesis the most viable solution to the so
      >called synoptic problem?
      >

      Which Q hypothesis?

      According to W. Schmittals, Mark was a documentary ancestor of Q (sic),
      according to D. Zeller and H. T. Fleddermann Q was a documentary
      ancestor of Mark, according to M. -E. Boismard, neither Q nor Mk was
      used by Mt or Lk, according to R. Price Q was the ancestor of both Mt
      and Lk, but Mt was also the ancestor of Lk, according to Streeter Q was
      the ancestor of Mt and Lk but Mt was not the ancestor of Lk, and so on.

      What Q is depends on the hypothesis which contains it. To discuss the
      viability of Q meaningfully, we have to state fully the hypothesis to
      which Q belongs. The viability of Q varies from Q hypothesis to Q
      hypothesis. When someone writes of Q, or of the Q hypothesis, we should
      immediately raise the question of which Q, or which Q hypothesis, is
      being considered.

      If we do not do this, we do not know what Q contained. Did it contain
      the Baptism of Jesus, as Crossan, Grundmann, Harnack, Hoffmann, Hunter,
      Jacobson, Luz, Marshall, Schmithals, Shurmann, Streeter, Taylor
      Vasiliadis, Weiss and Zeller all insisted? Or did it not, as Kloppenborg
      and others maintain?

      My answer to Jim's question is therefore that I do not understand it,
      and I suspect it is meaningless.

      Best wishes,
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... Yes. I m beginning to believe that any source critic who proposes a hypothetical document must also propose a reconstruction of that document, so that
      Message 2 of 24 , Oct 1, 2000
        At 04:48 PM 10/1/00 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
        >What Q is depends on the hypothesis which contains it. To discuss the
        >viability of Q meaningfully, we have to state fully the hypothesis to
        >which Q belongs. The viability of Q varies from Q hypothesis to Q
        >hypothesis. When someone writes of Q, or of the Q hypothesis, we should
        >immediately raise the question of which Q, or which Q hypothesis, is
        >being considered.

        Yes. I'm beginning to believe that any source critic who proposes
        a hypothetical document must also propose a reconstruction of that
        document, so that others can properly evaluate the proposed theory.

        As for Q, it is good to see that the International Q Project is
        meticulously reconstructing a Q with extensive documentation of
        each of their decisions. The IQP should be applauded for it.

        Stephen Carlson
        --
        Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
        Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
        "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
      • Stephen C. Carlson
        ... My knowledge of Rolland s theory is mediated through Neirynck s exposition of it. If you look at the figure on page 306 of his EVANGELICA II, it shows in
        Message 3 of 24 , Oct 1, 2000
          At 06:52 AM 9/30/00 EDT, Maluflen@... wrote:
          >In a message dated 9/29/2000 11:13:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
          >scarlson@... writes:
          >>In fact, a Q hypothesis can even be combined with a Griesbach
          >>hypothesis to get Rolland's Theory.
          >
          >Stephen, does this accurately describe Philippe Rolland's theory? I have read
          >articles by him in the past and don't recall ever coming away with such a
          >neat impression (I mean I have never seen his view summarized in these
          >terms). I am not doubting your accuracy, only asking for further
          >clarification, if such be needed.

          My knowledge of Rolland's theory is mediated through Neirynck's
          exposition of it. If you look at the figure on page 306 of his
          EVANGELICA II, it shows in Neirynck's explanation of Rolland,
          that Mark is a conflation of a proto-Matthew and a proto-Luke.
          There is also a Q source that is combined with proto-Matthew and
          proto-Luke to produce Matthew and Luke, respectively. Rolland's
          term for this Q source is Évangile des Craignant-Dieu.

          On page 320, Neirynck cites his own article in INTERRELATIONS (ed.
          Dungan; 1990) by "p. 16 à propos de la double tradition: l'hypothèse
          de Q acceptée sans difficulté. P. Rolland a raison d'insister sur
          ce qui distingue sa propre théorie de celle de Griesbach (lettre du
          20-3-91; voir notre conclusion ci-dessus), mais l'essentiel de la
          théorie de Griesbach n'est-ce pas la conflation des deux évangiles,
          matthéen et lucanien, dans celui de Marc? Rolland est d'accord qu'on
          parle à son sujet <<d'un Griesbach *modifié*>>."

          Stephen Carlson
          --
          Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
          Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
          "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
        • Jim West
          ... q + mk = mt and lk (with M and L respectively)- this is the classical q hypothesis. this is the one most people think of whn asked a simple question about
          Message 4 of 24 , Oct 1, 2000
            At 04:48 PM 10/1/00 +0100, you wrote:

            >Which Q hypothesis?
            >
            >According to W. Schmittals, Mark was a documentary ancestor of Q (sic),
            >according to D. Zeller and H. T. Fleddermann Q was a documentary
            >ancestor of Mark, according to M. -E. Boismard, neither Q nor Mk was
            >used by Mt or Lk, according to R. Price Q was the ancestor of both Mt
            >and Lk, but Mt was also the ancestor of Lk, according to Streeter Q was
            >the ancestor of Mt and Lk but Mt was not the ancestor of Lk, and so on.
            >
            >What Q is depends on the hypothesis which contains it. To discuss the
            >viability of Q meaningfully, we have to state fully the hypothesis to
            >which Q belongs. The viability of Q varies from Q hypothesis to Q
            >hypothesis. When someone writes of Q, or of the Q hypothesis, we should
            >immediately raise the question of which Q, or which Q hypothesis, is
            >being considered.

            q + mk = mt and lk (with M and L respectively)- this is the classical q
            hypothesis. this is the one most people think of whn asked a simple
            question about the issue.

            >
            >If we do not do this, we do not know what Q contained. Did it contain
            >the Baptism of Jesus, as Crossan, Grundmann, Harnack, Hoffmann, Hunter,
            >Jacobson, Luz, Marshall, Schmithals, Shurmann, Streeter, Taylor
            >Vasiliadis, Weiss and Zeller all insisted? Or did it not, as Kloppenborg
            >and others maintain?

            i didnt ask about all that now did i?

            >
            >My answer to Jim's question is therefore that I do not understand it,
            >and I suspect it is meaningless.

            everyone else seems to have understood it. perhaps you are having
            difficulty seeing the forest for the trees. again, it was a simple question-
            notwithstanding all the equivocating thats going on in response to it.

            still hoping to find diogenes out there somewhere....


            jim

            ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

            "I like to eat lettuce, but I always eat only the heart; in my opinion the
            leaves are for the pigs" S. Kierkegaard.

            Jim West, ThD
            http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
          • Stephen C. Carlson
            ... If you ask the experts, this is the classical Two Document Hypothesis. If you want a straight answer, it would help to ask a straight question, i.e., one
            Message 5 of 24 , Oct 1, 2000
              At 01:54 PM 10/1/00 -0400, Jim West wrote:
              >q + mk = mt and lk (with M and L respectively)- this is the classical q
              >hypothesis. this is the one most people think of whn asked a simple
              >question about the issue.

              If you ask the experts, this is the classical "Two Document Hypothesis."

              If you want a straight answer, it would help to ask a straight question,
              i.e., one that uses the correct terminology.

              Stephen Carlson
              --
              Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
              Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
              "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
            • Jim West
              ... yes of course-- of which Q is the constituent document number 1 while mark is document 2-- hence the very clever name- two document hypothesis.. whats
              Message 6 of 24 , Oct 1, 2000
                At 02:36 PM 10/1/00 -0400, you wrote:

                >>q + mk = mt and lk (with M and L respectively)- this is the classical q
                >>hypothesis. this is the one most people think of whn asked a simple
                >>question about the issue.
                >
                >If you ask the experts, this is the classical "Two Document Hypothesis."

                yes of course-- of which Q is the constituent document number 1 while mark
                is document 2-- hence the very clever name- two document hypothesis.. whats
                your point?

                >
                >If you want a straight answer, it would help to ask a straight question,
                >i.e., one that uses the correct terminology.

                i did. whether you call it oranges or citrus fruit of an orange nature, its
                still the same thing. but i see you have succumbed to pedantry instead of a
                discussion of the issue. well and good. i submit, however, and again, that
                this is PRECISELY why scholarship is unable to advance in this area beyond
                the entrenched positions of its many representatives. rather than honestly
                and openly discussing the topic at hand we are forced to deride, denigrate,
                and subliminally insult our discussion partners. small wonder the whole
                field of biblical studies is held in low regard by the general populace who
                see us as small squabblers making much ado about nothing.

                finis.

                jim


                >
                >Stephen Carlson
                >--
                >Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                >Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                >"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                >
                >
                ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

                memento o homo! quod cinis es et in cinerem revertaris

                Jim West, ThD
                http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
              • Brian E. Wilson
                Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Stephen Carlson commented -- ... Stephen, I would say that a source critic cannot even begin a reconstruction of a hypothetical
                Message 7 of 24 , Oct 1, 2000
                  Brian Wilson wrote --
                  >
                  >What Q is depends on the hypothesis which contains it. To discuss the
                  >viability of Q meaningfully, we have to state fully the hypothesis to
                  >which Q belongs. The viability of Q varies from Q hypothesis to Q
                  >hypothesis. When someone writes of Q, or of the Q hypothesis, we should
                  >immediately raise the question of which Q, or which Q hypothesis, is
                  >being considered.
                  >
                  Stephen Carlson commented --
                  >
                  >Yes. I'm beginning to believe that any source critic who proposes
                  >a hypothetical document must also propose a reconstruction of that
                  >document, so that others can properly evaluate the proposed theory.
                  >
                  Stephen,
                  I would say that a source critic cannot even begin a
                  reconstruction of a hypothetical source unless he has defined his
                  hypothesis. His reconstruction is then inferred by applying the
                  hypothesis to the synoptic gospels, just as presumably the IQP is
                  applying their "Q hypothesis" to Mt, Mk and Lk in order to make their
                  decisions on what was in Q.
                  >
                  >As for Q, it is good to see that the International Q Project is
                  >meticulously reconstructing a Q with extensive documentation of
                  >each of their decisions. The IQP should be applauded for it.
                  >
                  Has the IQP actually defined their "Q hypothesis"? If so, it might be
                  interesting to know what it states. If not, I am not sure what the
                  applause would be for.

                  Could anyone tell us what definition of "Q hypothesis" (or "Q") the IQP
                  is using?

                  Or has Jim West already told us, perhaps? :)

                  Best wishes,
                  BRIAN WILSON

                  E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

                  Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                  > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                  > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                  _
                • Stephen C. Carlson
                  ... I think it all depends on what you mean by defined. I am applauding them for reconstructing Q *and* documenting their decisions every step of the way.
                  Message 8 of 24 , Oct 1, 2000
                    At 08:45 PM 10/1/00 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
                    >Has the IQP actually defined their "Q hypothesis"? If so, it might be
                    >interesting to know what it states. If not, I am not sure what the
                    >applause would be for.

                    I think it all depends on what you mean by "defined." I am applauding
                    them for reconstructing Q *and* documenting their decisions every step
                    of the way. This transparency allows the interested critic to evaluate
                    their work with having to guess or "infer" what their reasoning is.

                    Stephen Carlson
                    --
                    Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                    Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                    "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                  • Brian E. Wilson
                    Brian Wilson wrote -- ... Stephen Carlson replied -- ... is. ... Stephen, I wonder whether it does allow the interested critic to do this unless the IQP have
                    Message 9 of 24 , Oct 2, 2000
                      Brian Wilson wrote --
                      >
                      >Has the IQP actually defined their "Q hypothesis"? If so, it might be
                      >interesting to know what it states.
                      >
                      Stephen Carlson replied --
                      >
                      >I think it all depends on what you mean by "defined." I am applauding
                      >them for reconstructing Q *and* documenting their decisions every step
                      >of the way. This transparency allows the interested critic to evaluate
                      >their work with[out] having to guess or "infer" what their reasoning
                      is.
                      >
                      Stephen,
                      I wonder whether it does allow the interested critic to do this
                      unless the IQP have defined the hypothesis they are using? It seems to
                      me that without a definition, the interested critic would not know what
                      hypothesis to evaluate, or what the work is supposed to be about,
                      however thorough the documentation on decisions on which words are
                      supposed to be included in hypothetical "Q", and which are to be
                      excluded.

                      The writing of the IQP can hardly be "transparent" unless at every step
                      of the way it clearly relates their decisions of what words to include
                      in "Q" to their documentary hypothesis of "Q". That can hardly have
                      happened if they do not know what documentary hypothesis they are trying
                      to apply to the synoptic gospels to produce their reconstruction of "Q".

                      Does anyone please know whether the IQP have defined the "Q hypothesis"
                      or "Q", and if so what their definition is? What have they actually been
                      trying to do?

                      Best wishes,
                      BRIAN WILSON

                      E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

                      Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                      > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                      > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                      _
                    • Stephen C. Carlson
                      ... I am afraid, to answer your question, you are going to have to read the IQP yourself and see if you are satisfied. Without a definition of what you mean
                      Message 10 of 24 , Oct 2, 2000
                        At 09:08 AM 10/2/00 +0100, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
                        >Stephen Carlson replied --
                        >>I think it all depends on what you mean by "defined." I am applauding
                        >>them for reconstructing Q *and* documenting their decisions every step
                        >>of the way. This transparency allows the interested critic to evaluate
                        >>their work with[out] having to guess or "infer" what their reasoning
                        >is.
                        >>
                        > I wonder whether it does allow the interested critic to do this
                        >unless the IQP have defined the hypothesis they are using? It seems to
                        >me that without a definition, the interested critic would not know what
                        >hypothesis to evaluate, or what the work is supposed to be about,
                        >however thorough the documentation on decisions on which words are
                        >supposed to be included in hypothetical "Q", and which are to be
                        >excluded.

                        I am afraid, to answer your question, you are going to have to read
                        the IQP yourself and see if you are satisfied. Without a definition
                        of what you mean by "definition" (despite repeated calls for
                        clarification), I am unable to provide you any guidance whatsoever
                        on whether the IQP will suit your purposes.

                        The IQP does suit my purposes, because on every point of their
                        reconstruction (even down to the most mind-numbing of details),
                        they document the opinions pro and con and their own evaluations.

                        Stephen Carlson
                        --
                        Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                        Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                        "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                      • Brian E. Wilson
                        Can anyone please give references for any source of information on the aims of the International Q Project? I would like to know what task they have set
                        Message 11 of 24 , Oct 2, 2000
                          Can anyone please give references for any source of information on the
                          aims of the International Q Project? I would like to know what task
                          they have set themselves to accomplish. Where, please, can I start
                          reading on this?

                          Best wishes,
                          BRIAN WILSON

                          E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

                          Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                          > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                          > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                          _
                        • Mark Goodacre
                          ... For a couple of sketches on the web, see the Bamberg site (Paul Hoffmann et al) and the Claremont site (James Robinson et al). These and other Q web
                          Message 12 of 24 , Oct 3, 2000
                            Brian Wilson asked:

                            > Can anyone please give references for any source of information
                            > on the aims of the International Q Project? I would like to know
                            > what task they have set themselves to accomplish. Where, please,
                            > can I start reading on this?

                            For a couple of sketches on the web, see the Bamberg site
                            (Paul Hoffmann et al) and the Claremont site (James Robinson
                            et al). These and other Q web materials listed on the NT
                            Gateway at http://ntgateway.com/synoptic/Q.htm. But the
                            best way to get a handle on their work is to spend time in
                            _Documenta Q_, the massive database and evaluation
                            currently underway. It's published by Peeters and several
                            volumes have been produced so far. Also forthcoming is _The
                            Critical Edition of Q_, listed at Amazon etc. as due out round
                            about now.

                            Mark

                            --------------------------------------
                            Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                            Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                            University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                            Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

                            http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                            Homepage
                            http://www.ntgateway.com
                            The New Testament Gateway
                          • Karel Hanhart
                            ... Unfortunately I lost your reply ( while trying to move it to my Synoptic-L folder of my computer) to my reaction re. Semitic style and genre of Mark which
                            Message 13 of 24 , Oct 18, 2000
                              "Brian E. Wilson" wrote:

                              > Brian,

                              Unfortunately I lost your reply ( while trying to move it to my Synoptic-L
                              folder of my computer) to my reaction re. Semitic style and genre of Mark
                              which I wrote on Oct. 15 (o7.35.42+02.00). I would like to answer your
                              remarks. The same is true for the contribution of Maluflen on that subject.
                              Is it possible that both of you or one of you send your reply again? I am
                              still somewhat of a beginner on the Internet. cordially your Karel


                              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.